25 people died from a chemical attack!

1. 64

   maxoxam41posted 11 years ago

   It just happened in Syria and guess who did it? The so-called Free Syria Army. Most of the victims were civilians! But what do we care? We are so far!
   Where do those chemical weapons come from if not from the West? Since radical islamists possess chemical weapons with our blessing why did we make a big deal of what Saddam Hussein was accused of possessing?
   Our democracies are caught red-handed in their games of lies and collusions.
   Any reactions? Or we need more deaths and better reasons to react?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Some claim the chemical weapons in Syria came from Saddam's regime. At any rate - no one knows right now if it actually WAS a chemical weapons attack.

      replyreport
   2. 96

      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe from their own backyard.  Mustard gas, for instance, isn't terribly difficult to make. 
      
      Do you have a reason for automatically blaming the West for supplying them?  Or just more hate speech?

      replyreport
      1. 64

         maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Gas is the reason and also the only Arabic speaking country that ever opposed the US and Europe in their decisions and, that is an Iranian ally.
         Your hate speech justification is hasty and lazy. It takes more thought process to understand one's thoughts.

         replyreport
2. 82

   psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

   You think only western countries have products that can be used to make chemical weapons?   : / (most sources think the Syrian government has them. So both sides could have accessed them locally).
   
   Currently the UN is still saying these are "allegations"--there has been a lot of spin and outright fabrication on both sides of this war.

   replyreport
   1. 64

      maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Who are those sources? The same ones that ridiculed us with Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction?

      replyreport
3. 64

   maxoxam41posted 11 years ago

   On the western sides it is always "allegations" but when it came to Saddam Hussein it was factual. The UN said so. It's been a long time that it lost its legitimacy as an independent organ if ever it was. The only difference is now I am not blind anymore. I see what we are doing in the middle east, in southern America, in Africa...

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So being "not blind" gives the right to make unfounded allegations or insinuations?
      
      On the contrary, I would have to say that blindness is closing in ever darker.

      replyreport
      1. 64

         maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         In what way are they inuendoes? Enlighten the idiot that I am.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            It is an innuendo when you imply the west provided the gas weapons without plainly saying so.  Having zero evidence doesn't help much, either.

            replyreport
            1. 64

               maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Were found on the Syrian soil American and Israeli weapons. The source that I read is in Syria where is your source from, stating the contrary?

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  American weapons on Syrian soil?  How shocking!
                  
                  Do you think there is a single country on the face of this earth without American weapons in it?
                  
                  On the other hand, if you are claiming American gas weapons were found in Syria, why, I would have to ask for a source.  A very, very good source.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Since we KNOW Saddam had sarin gas weapons and we KNOW none were found during the Iraq war - and we SUSPECT they were moved from Iraq to Syria - it follows that's where they came from.

                     replyreport
                     1. 56

                        Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        . . .and if that ends up being exactly where the gas weapons came from, then I wonder what a lot of the people who constantly say that Bush was lying about weapons of mass destruction will say.  I'm guessing they'll overlook this fact or just go back to saying it was a war for oil.  We haven't heard that one in a while.

                        replyreport
                     2. 96

                        wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        That is indeed the logical conclusion.  My question is why the OP is insinuating that the chemical weapons used in Syria were provided by the US.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Were chemical weapons even used?

                           replyreport
                           1. 96

                              wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              *shrug*  According to what I can infer from the OP, yes.  The same source that claims they were provided by the US, so who knows?

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 The experts talking on the news the other day said no, at least from what they could tell from the hospital videos. I don't know.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 60

                                    Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    At first you heard there were chemical weapons and that went away kind of quick.
                                    That term chemical weapons is one I doubt certain folks want verified these days.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 96

                                       wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       Outside of chemical explosives I don't think you'll find any that doesn't run afoul of the conventions.  So no, it would not be a good thing to have verified.

                                       report
4. 82

   psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

   Given that the allegation lacks named people and places, and both sides have lied their heads off, I won't be making any assumptions until the UN investigation produces some real information.

   replyreport
   1. 64

      maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Which second side are you referring to when you allude that they lied? And again what is your source? If it is the mainstream media, it is not interesting because of their lack of objectivity.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         The second side in the conflict--both the government and rebels have been releasing PR bollocks by the tonne, some of it clearly fabricated or staged.

         replyreport
         1. 64

            maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Since when do you read the other side of a story? Your source, please.

            replyreport
5. 56

   Education Answerposted 11 years ago

   The CIA, under Bush, claimed that Iraq's chemical weapons were being taken to Syria.  Could it be that there were weapons of mass destruction?  Hmmmm.

   replyreport
   1. 64

      maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      And, you still believe the CIA? wAOW!!!

      replyreport
6. 64

   maxoxam41posted 11 years ago

   They found FIM-92 Stinger in the hands of Syrian "freedom fighters"  weeks ago (their export are strictly controlled supposedly). Where do they come from? Who provided those marvels? B 61 are on the Turkish soil probably facing Syria. Turkey can afford those?
   What do you call a very, very good source? The same one than you? Or the majority? Exclusively US?

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      A stinger missile?  Not a war gas weapon?
      
      No surprise at all.  I'm sure you will find rifles, pistols and probably even tanks scattered through the world.  There are certainly warplanes, complete with munitions everywhere.  But what does that have to do with American made chemical weapons in Syria?

      replyreport
      1. 64

         maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         We can find one and not the other? Based upon which rule or principle? Since we can find those Stingers in the hands of fanatic islamists what is the condition for the US to sell those weapons to potential enemies? Aren't we perpetually harassed by the news and politicians telling us that the enemy is Syria, Libya, Iran... All muslim by the way, and our sophisticated weapons find their way there by pure magic! What is the logical explanation to this contradiction?
         Do you understand Spanish?
         "El ministro israelí de Inteligencia y Asuntos Estratégicos, Yuval Steinitz, considera que es cierto que se han empleado armas químicas en Siria. Al menos 25 personas han muerto este martes en la provincia de Alepo por un ataque con armas químicas realizado por rebeldes sirios, según informó la agencia estatal de noticias de Siria, citada por Reuters.
         
         El Ministerio de Exteriores de Rusia condenó el ataque y afirmó que el empleo de armas químicas por parte de la oposición muestra un desarrollo extremadamente alarmante de los acontecimientos en el país."

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            And here I thought the discussion was about American provided chemical weapons. 
            
            Not stinger missiles.  I take it, then, that you have decided to drop the insinuation that the US is providing chemical weapons to Syria or it's enemies?

            replyreport
            1. 64

               maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Since the US supports financially, logistically the Syrian rebels in what way wouldn't they be involved in this chemical attack since they are in the front rows? What is your logic?

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Because there wasn't a chemical attack.

                  replyreport
               2. 96

                  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  No, the question is what is your proof for making the statement?
                  
                  Not what possible path of logic, no matter how twisted, could be used to show it as a possibility no matter how slim, but proof that it happened that way?
                  
                  I could claim the Russians did it - they are in the same hemisphere.  Nigeria is on the same continent.  Brazil has boats and Switzerland has planes.  All about likely as the US - shall we blame them, too?

                  replyreport
                  1. 64

                     maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     What is your source that stated the contrary. Reuter stated it.
                     As for your examples they lack of my realism. It shows how unimportant the truth has to your eyes. Your lack of objectivity says it all.

                     replyreport
                     1. 96

                        wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        You made the accusation - you back it up.  It's not up to me or anyone else to prove it wrong.
                        
                        There is definitely a lack of objectivity here, yes, but it's not from me.  I've repeatedly ask for your proof, you show none - just more statements that it happened the way you subjectively claim it did.  No evidence for a claim, after all, makes it pretty clear that the claim is nothing but a subjective desire it be true.

                        replyreport
                        1. 64

                           maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           www.voltairenet.org now what is yours? Mainstream? No thanks, and you are trying to give us lessons as for the truth. Even your examples can't sustain a rational argumentation. It would be easy for me to crush you down. The only question is are you ready to be humiliated. I have enough of people pretending to understand what is happening internationally, but the worst is the one who constantly denies the malevolence of one's country.
                           Yes, we know EVIL is ALWAYS the other but when it comes to back it up with facts, it is another story!

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              Soul Man Dancingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              1. delusions of grandeur
                              
                              2. That would be the country where you really hail from (not USA). Save the denial for the tourists.
                              
                              3. You wouldn't know a true fact if it landed on your head and flapped it's wings in your face.

                              replyreport
                              1. 64

                                 maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 No delusions of grandeur, only realism. Most of you have limited information and here you go pointing a finger at any foreign country resisting us and that is despized by our media. Here you go ignoring foreign information whereas ours pushed us to invade countries that were not responsible of the attacks. Do we apologize, no we don't, we just keep on moving for more pilfering.
                                 And what is a true fact?

                                 replyreport
7. 82

   psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

   In either case rumors of this attack are not panning out.  It is looking like it never happened. By which I mean neutral third parties cannot find survivors or witnesses. Leaving the only report of this at all being the government news channel, which is used for propaganda purposes.

   replyreport
   1. 64

      maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      How convenient to state that everything coming from their government is propaganda. What about ours? No propaganda at all? We're REALLY living in a perfect democracy! And it would make me a troll to believe it!

      replyreport
8. 82

   psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

   Many places reported what was claimed in the government news channel.  That is not the same as reporting that it actually occurred.

   replyreport
   1. 64

      maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Our news channels are reporting that North Korea is aiming at attacking us? Does it mean that they will? Or are they trying to scare us like with Saddam Hussein?
      So far the only unreliable sources of information are ours (globally the western ones).

      replyreport